Team Herald
PANJIM: In the end, the need to have OBC reservations for the panchayat polls was pushed completely to the background by the Goa government, as one of the reasons why the polls could not have been postponed, as per several Court orders and observations.
In response to several petitions challenging the Goa government’s decision to postpone elections and then in the application it made to the Court requesting some more time after the court-ordered elections to be held before August 12, it is seen that the reasons for postponement kept changing, none of which impressed the court
It started off with having to reserve wards for OBCs
On May 16 The government said that the poll date will be finalised after seeking the AGs opinion on the Supreme Court judgment on conducting panchayat polls viz a viz ward reservations
On May 19 Chief Minister Pramod Sawant said Election Commission “will be asked for time” for the OBC commission to prepare a report on reservations
On May 22 State Election Commission recommends that the State govt hold an election (notify) without OBC reservations
On May 24 First sign of changing the goalpost, Govt decides to use the monsoon card and state that elections would be held after the monsoons
Thereafter when public-spirited individuals move the Bombay High Court at Goa, against the poll postponement, the State governments stand and the court's observations made it clear that attempts to stall the elections were just not possible under law.
Here are some of the important cases the Bombay High Court relied on, in its judgment in the Goa Panchayat election case (Bench of Justices Laddha & Sonak)
1 Kishansing Tomar VS Municipality of Ahmedabad & others
Key observation: Election Commission should not yield to vested interests to postpone elections
The State election commission must complete the election before the expiry of five years, and not yield to situations that may be created by vested interests to postpone elections from being held within a stipulated time.
If SEC is not getting the government’s cooperation, it should move the High Court, and then the Supreme Court.
2 Suresh Mahajan vs State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Key observation: Elections are a constitutional priority: If triple test or delimitation is used for postponement, it will be infeasible for any Election Commission to notify
elections.
In the Suresh Majahan case, the Supreme Court noticed that no timely elections were held in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The reasons for such a delay were non-completion of delimitation work and or triple test compliance (for reservation of seats) The Court said if such grounds were to be accepted, it would be infeasible for any Election Commission to notify the election programme well in advance. And holding elections was a “constitutional priority
Then the reason changed: OBC out monsoon in
Director Panchayats says: Ballot paper ink may get smudged in the monsoons, Court says: This trivialises the constitutional mandate.
The Director of Panchayats, Goa Ms Siddhi Halarnakar in Para 37 of her affidavit to the High Court writes: There are various problems relating to the transportation of election material and staff on account of rain. The election will be held using ballot paper, there is a chance of the paper being spoilt or the ink being smudged when the voter handles the ballot paper.
The HC responded: This trivialises the constitutional mandate
The reason changed again: Monsoon out: Assembly Session and Ganesh Chaturthi in
In the application made by the State seeking an extension of time AFTER the High Court ordered elections by August 12, the reasons given by Director Panchayats were “Legislative assembly session between July 11 and August 22 and Ganesh Chaturthi festivities on Aug 31, not monsoons or OBC reservations
HC rejected both:
Assembly Session reason: High court relied on Supreme Court order in Manohar Lal Sharma vs CEC which “rejected” the notion that no budget session of Parliament can be held during the pendency of the model of conduct.
Ganesh Chaturthi reason: High Court relied on SC order on Suresh Mahajan vs State of MP “The Constitutional mandate is inviolable. Neither the SEC nor state govt or the State Legislature, including the Hon Supreme Court, can countenance dispensation to the contrary.
Therefore event as the government kept on changing reason after reason not to do its constitutionally bound duty, the Courts kept on rejecting each and every reason to protect grassroots democracy.